Page 3 of 10

Re: New species?

Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:20 am
by Minimalist
Got a bill from the hospital for $29K. Four nights!

4 nights at the Waldorf would have been a tenth of that and you'd have had a better time.

Anyway, wasn't there a group in Spain dated to about 25,000 BC?

Re: New species?...or not

Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:14 pm
by Forum Monk
Frank Harrist wrote:What if they didn't die out, but went "underground"?
Again, look at your map. How does a reclusive and now "underground" creature manage to stomp all over north america? No bones, no scat, no signs of dwellings or feed/forage locations; no evidence they exist whatsoever. BUT - something has convinced you Frank. What is it? I don't believe you been talking to Jack Daniels or Bud Weiser.

Re: New species?

Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:04 pm
by Frank Harrist
I'm not really convinced.You say there's no evidence, but there is evidence. People just don't accept it. Correct, there is no definitive proof, but many small things which point to the conclusion that there is something out there. There are a couple of good videos, the Patterson/Gimlin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ByWc5hTgBk film and the Freeman footage http://www.metacafe.com/watch/799471/fr ... t_footage/ which are compelling. A few others are iffy. There have been countless tracks found in places where no one could possibly expect someone to be. Why hoax track deep in the woods where no one goes just on the off chance someone mught see them? And then there are the thousands of eyewitness accounts, some of which are pure fiction, some are mis-identification, but so many?
There has been DNA evidence found but nothing to compare it to so no way to classify it without a body.
There are recorded calls which can't be identified. http://www.bfro.net/REF/bfmedia.asp
And then there's the fact that my best buddy has seen one and also found tracks.

No not convinced, but certainly curious.

Re: New species?

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 1:52 am
by dannan14
i'm sorry Frank, as a huge X-files fan "i want to believe", but the linked videos are not impressive at all. The first one looks very much like what one would expect if a fat guy put on a gorilla suit and walked around. The second was way too far away.

i agree that if such a creature exists it must be very stealthy, but at the same time why have no bones ever been found? It can't be that they are so recent that finds are unlikey since the stories of these creatures go back so far in time. i guess definitive evidence will consist of a body, dead or alive.

Re: New species?

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:41 am
by Rokcet Scientist
And if we don't find it, we'll make it!

Between cloning, stem cell therapy and plastic surgery we should have one jumping through hoops on Larry King within a decade!

A real Frankenstein's (or Frank-'n-Furter's, for Rocky Horror aficionados) monster. :lol:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/lffxmk

Re: New species?

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 12:47 pm
by Forum Monk
Frank Harrist wrote:I'm not really convinced.You say there's no evidence, but there is evidence. People just don't accept it. Correct, there is no definitive proof, but many small things which point to the conclusion that there is something out there. There are a couple of good videos, the Patterson/Gimlin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ByWc5hTgBk film and the Freeman footage http://www.metacafe.com/watch/799471/fr ... t_footage/ which are compelling.
Videos and photos are problematic as you know. People have been playing games with film since cameras were invented. Some even think the Shroud of Turin is a kind of photographic scam based on a camera obscura. Hair, bones, teeth, DNA - these are compelling since they are physical evidence.
A few others are iffy. There have been countless tracks found in places where no one could possibly expect someone to be. Why hoax track deep in the woods where no one goes just on the off chance someone mught see them? And then there are the thousands of eyewitness accounts, some of which are pure fiction, some are mis-identification, but so many?
UFOs are the same. Many, many eyewitnesses and not a single shred of physical evidence.
There has been DNA evidence found but nothing to compare it to so no way to classify it without a body.
Huh? Where is the reference for this? Who found it? What is it? Who analyzed it?
No not convinced, but certainly curious.
New species are often found. One can never say for certain, I suppose.

Re: New species?

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 1:27 pm
by Minimalist
And let's not pretend that there is not a commercial interest in keeping these legends alive and well....

http://www.viator.com/tours/Edinburgh/2 ... 2330VIA07E
Get a real taste of Scotland on this two day trip from Edinburgh. Venture into Inverness, the capital city of the Highlands which sits astride the Loch Ness, home to the elusive Loch Ness Monster.

or

http://www.roswellufomuseum.com/


or

http://www.sasquatchtours.com/

Re: New species?

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:09 pm
by Frank Harrist
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/mq-dna/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BLKEW5OC_U
From the History Channel's Monsterquest entitled "Sasquatch Attack".
http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2007/1 ... annel.html

Be patient, I'll have more stuff as I think of it.

Re: New species?

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 5:49 pm
by Minimalist
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podca ... 414B7FFE87
Steve: Tell me about how you wound up doing a DNA sequence analysis of what was allegedly a Sasquatch.

Coltman: Well! It was last summer—July—and I was watching the news and there was a Sasquatch sighting in the Yukon that had really sort of taken the imagination of the media. It was on the CBC, it was on television; and these people who had seen the Sasquatch over their backyard had actually found hair and footprints the next morning and they sent the hair to the regional biologist in the Yukon. I happened to know, I have done some work with biologists in Yukon before and I think one of the media asked them if they would be able to do a DNA test, but they didn't have the resources to do that. So, that evening I—on a whim almost—sent an e-mail and said just send that hair down to our lab here and we will test it for you because we do a lot of DNA work from hair and other kinds of samples. So, it was quite a straightforward thing for us to test and I though[t] well, kind of on a whim; and also maybe to help them out so that he could be absolutely certain that what it was and to satisfy curiosity of the public by we running this test on.
but then....the tests came back....
So, we tested it against that database to find out what it would match and this was something [where] you quite literally cut and paste the sequence into your browser on the Web and it will return with the best matches; and it came back with 100 percent matches to a bison. So, we were pretty sure we had a bison.

Re: New species?

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:57 pm
by Forum Monk
Minimalist wrote:
...it came back with 100 percent matches to a bison. So, we were pretty sure we had a bison.
lol
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...

Re: New species?

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:18 am
by Frank Harrist
That's not the one I posted and I don't deny there are idiots out there. You sayin' one moron disqualifies the whole bunch? Also I never said anything about the Loch ness monster. It's not real, by the way. :roll:

Re: New species?

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:57 pm
by Minimalist
I see we're back on line.


I didn't find any follow up on the one you posted, Frank. If I had to speculate my first thought would be that there is a grizzly walking around with a sore paw and a bad attitude. That's probably a bad combo.

I know you didn't mention Nessie. I did.

Re: New species?

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:37 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
Don't forget the Yeti. Or the Black Panther of the Devon moors. Or the Mongolian Death Worm (there's an expedition out there searching for it as we speak... :lol: ). Or the Unicorn. Hey, even we in Holland had a big cat, labeled a cougar or leopard, on the loose in a woody area, 2 years ago. With very blurry pictures in the papers and local panic and all.
Nothing has ever been found of any of those.

http://www.virtuescience.com/mongolian-death-worm.html

The biggest predators we've got in Holland are red foxes, sea eagles, and seals.

Re: New species?

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:49 pm
by Frank Harrist
[quote="Minimalist"]


I didn't find any follow up on the one you posted, Frank.

quote]
I can't find the follow up so I'll paraphrase. The evidence was inconclusive. The DNA came back as near enough to human so that contamination could not be ruled out or it was a species close to human but unidentifiable because there was no match on file. Also, grizzlies don't throw rocks or firewood. At least look at my links before you dismiss them. Lets also compare apples to apples and stop bringinhg up all this other bullshit. I'm talking about bigfoot not any of this other crap. If you want to look for some fucking demon worm be my guest.

Re: New species?

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:13 pm
by Frank Harrist
Jane Goodall says they exist.

http://www.bfro.net/news/GoodallTranscript.asp


Also, I know this is blurry, but WTF is it if not a Yeti?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/799450/footage_of_a_yeti/